Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

OK, let's game this out......

1. Person X, a Depository employee, comes forward to the authorities with curtain rods s/he has found in the Depository

2. Person X is thanked and told, 'Don't worry, we will look into this'

3. Curtain rods are submitted to Lt. Day's lab (3/15/64)

4. Curtain rods are tested for Mr Oswald's prints

5. Curtain rods are formally released (3/24/64)

6. Person X is shown the submission/release form and told, 'OK, so we looked into this and Oswald's prints aren't on them----we ask you not to talk to anyone about the rods, it would only cause confusion'

7. The submission/release form is kept on file for the contingency that Person X----------or someone Person X has told-----------goes public: the form allows the 'investigating' authorities to assure folks that this was "looked into" thoroughly

8. Word of the discovery of curtain rods at the Depository spreads, however, and Mr Roy Truly is asked to give an on-the-record statement that no curtain rods were found at the Depository

 

[Alan Ford]

OK, let's game this out......

1. Person X, a Depository employee, comes forward to the authorities with curtain rods s/he has found in the Depository

2. Person X is thanked and told, 'Don't worry, we will look into this'

3. Curtain rods are submitted to Lt. Day's lab (3/15/64)

4. Curtain rods are tested for Mr Oswald's prints

5. Curtain rods are formally released (3/24/64)

6. Person X is shown the submission/release form and told, 'OK, so we looked into this and Oswald's prints aren't on them----we ask you not to talk to anyone about the rods, it would only cause confusion'

7. The submission/release form is kept on file for the contingency that Person X----------or someone Person X has told-----------goes public: the form allows the 'investigating' authorities to assure folks that this was "looked into" thoroughly

8. Word of the discovery of curtain rods at the Depository spreads, however, and Mr Roy Truly is asked to give an on-the-record statement that no curtain rods were found at the Depository

 

How and ever! It is felt that something more needs to be done to destroy the notion that Mr Oswald really did bring curtain rods into work that day. And so an elaborate charade is put together at the Paine residence on 3/23: the 'discovery' and handing over to Agent Howlett of 2 curtain rods (to be marked 275 & 276!).

'Proof' that they never left the Paine household the morning of 11/22/63! 'Proof' that LHO lied to the man giving him a ride!!

[David Von Pein]

Lee Oswald denied that he had told Frazier that he was transporting curtain rods.

We don't know that for sure...but even if he did he may have had good reason to do so.

But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)

[Alan Ford]

But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)

That all you got, Mr von Pein? Really? 'We know Fritz' report is truthful because CTers think it's not'? V. poor!

Now---------how do you explain the information and dates on the document I've posted?

[Walt Cakebread]

But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)

we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie.

Dear Mr Von Pea Brain....   Please present solid proof that Lee was lying when he told Captain Fritz that he never told Buell Frazier that the 27 inch long sack ( that's Frazier's estimate of the length of the FLIMSEY light weight paper bag) that he carried in the rain that morning, contained curtain rods.     Please present the irrefutable proof so we can resolve this six decades old debate. 

 

[Richard Smith]

That's what I thought. Hiding behind the "you would dismiss it anyway" excuse...

I asked you to provide another interpretation. It doesn't matter if it's speculation or not. I merely want to find out why you dismiss one interpretation, yet can or will not provide another one. Saying it makes no sense is just a cop out. Parts of the WC narrative make no sense to me either, so is that the "end of story" also?

Go on, then, give us another interpretation...  Perhaps I agree with you. Who knows?

And, "Richard", let's not forget that anybody who dismisses something out of hand and not gives and alternative interpretation, is, by your own definition, a contrarian!

It can be as simple as a mistake on the date on the form.  Instead of a submission date of "3/15" it should have been "3/25".  That aligns with Paine's testimony on 3/23 and explains how the same exhibit numbers can appear on the form that weren't assigned until 3/23 (i.e. 275 and 276).  We know these are the same curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage because they have the exact same exhibit number as noted on the form.  So the curtain rods are obtained on 3/23 and assigned their exhibit numbers that day (as then reflected on the form) and provided to the DPD on 3/25.  As noted below, there is confusion on the release date which could have been 3/26 per the WC exhibit.  Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony.  Some information on the form could have been filled in at a later time (such as the correct exhibit numbers).

btw:  CE 1952 appears to contain a different date than the form Alan has posted.  It suggests the "specimen" was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24.  Demonstrating that this form could have been completed well after the fact and post dated back to the original times and dates.  Thus, the potential for confusion on the dates.  In addition, we know there were no curtain rods found at the TSBD because Roy Truly confirmed that to the WC when asked that specific question in Sept. '64.  If the purpose of this exercise was to appease some person who had found curtain rods at the TSBD, as Alan suggests, then having Roy Truly confirm in writing that no such curtain rods had ever been found there would entirely undermine that purpose.  The official record would be that no such curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  Thus, not a great story to tell someone who had found curtain rods at the TSBD as alleged by Alan.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm

[Walt Cakebread]

That all you got, Mr von Pein? Really? 'We know Fritz' report is truthful because CTers think it's not'? V. poor!

Now---------how do you explain the information and dates on the document I've posted?

Anybody with a modicum amount of intelligence who has read Captain Fritz's memo should understand the Captain Fritz should have opened the memo with "Once upon a time" like all other fairytales

[Alan Ford]

It can be as simple as a mistake on the date on the form.  Instead of a submission date of "3/15" it should have been "3/25".

Which leaves you with a form that now has a submission date LATER than the release date. Which is as simple as a mistake on BOTH dates on the form! 

That aligns with Paine's testimony on 3/23

The only reason it aligns is that you have changed the number arbitrarily in order to force an alignment.

and explains how the same exhibit numbers can appear on the form that weren't assigned until 3/23 (i.e. 275 and 276).  We know these are the same curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage because they have the exact same exhibit number as noted on the form. So the curtain rods are obtained on 3/23 and assigned their exhibit numbers that day

How were the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 arrived at? Read the testimony--------it's a hoot!

(as then reflected on the form) and provided to the DPD on 3/25.  As noted below, there is confusion on the release date which could have been 3/26 per the WC exhibit.  Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints

Ludicrous to suggest that checking the garage for curtain rods would not have entered anyone's mind until months after the assassination!

And why on earth would two curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result show?

and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony.

In which case that phase of the testimony-taking in Ms Paine's garage is a complete charade, yes? Agent Howlett is only pretending to see the curtain rods for the first time.

Some information on the form could have been filled in at a later time (such as the correct exhibit numbers).

btw:  CE 1952 appears to contain a different date than the form Alan has posted.

No 'appears' about it!

It suggests the "specimen" was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24.

No, it suggests that *a* specimen was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24--------------and photographic evidence tells us further that testing was done on *a* specimen on 3/25 = a day AFTER *another* specimen was formally released.

Demonstrating that this form could have been completed well after the fact and post dated back to the original times and dates.  Thus, the potential for confusion on the dates. In addition, we know there were no curtain rods found at the TSBD because Roy Truly confirmed that to the WC when asked that specific question in Sept. '64. If the purpose of this exercise was to appease some person who had found curtain rods at the TSBD, as Alan suggests,

No he doesn't------------read again what Alan wrote!